Yes, back then, mostly only white males could own guns- or could vote. This has been changed by other Amendments to the Bill of Rights.
Thus now, Militia= people.
I showed several cites that were not behind a paywall and thus worthless like yours, all of which shows that violent crime and murder is on a decrease.
The percentage of guns that do not start out in the hands of law-abiding citizens is negligible to the point of nonexistence. If I am shot, the gun that shoots me was at some point made available to the criminal by a law-abiding citizen.
Being a pedant, I am willing to go to the mat over Russia being a first world country, because I know the original definition, dammit.
As a non-idiot, I am not impressed by the rhetorical point you’re attempting to make. As far as gun violence goes America is a hellhole, comparatively speaking.
And you would be wrong.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There’s that phrase again - “the people”. And who are these “the people” mention in the 10th? Those are the very same “the people” mentioned in four other Bill of (Individual) Rights Amendments, including the 2nd, and it refers to individuals.
The 10th Amendment made it clear that “the people”, and that the States, retained powers that had not been granted to the newly formed federal government.
Is there a specific reason that you failed to underline the word “or”? Oh right, because it obliterates your argument.
Look, you’re trying to make the argument that the bill of rights refers ONLY to personal rights. To make that argument in any persuasive way, you’re going to have to show that the tenth amendment refers ONLY to individuals, and not the states, otherwise we have an example of how amendments can refer to things other than individuals.
Note that you being wrong about the scope of the amendments doesn’t immediately criminalize gun ownership or anything, so you can probably bail on this sinking ship without completely self-destructing.
Yes, y’all are right. The Tenth Amendment does indeed talk about some powers being reserved for the states:
But note that little conjunction “or”:
Because “the States” and “the people” are not the same thing. Therefore, in the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the same thing as a provision preserving the power of the States to maintain militias.
Now, the question then becomes, does the right of the people to keep and bear arms include a right to carry arms outside of one’s one home? And if so, what sorts of limitations may be put on that right: May a state require arms to be borne openly; or alternatively, may a state require arms that are being carried in public be kept concealed from ordinary view? May a state require a license for carrying arms in public: either a license to bear arms openly, or a license to carry concealed weapons, or a license to carry arms in public whether or not they are concealed? If states may require such licenses, what sorts of criteria may they use in determining who gets a license?
I for one, as a liberal, am of the opinion the second amendment should be taken literally. To paraphrase: 'Because everyone drives horse-driven-buggys, the federal government cannot possibly ban you from having running boards anywhere, up to and including in schools, national parks, and while strolling up to the president in the white house, pointing your running board directly at his face."
The second amendment is obsolete - it says so itself in its first four words. We should round up some non-corrupt, rational politicians somewhere and repeal the damn thing. But until then the damn thing is law, dammit, and thanks to that psychopaths are always going to be able to get a hold of running boards and use them to kill people whenever and however they like.
Your argument that I’m wrong is itself sprinkled with wrongness, as I’ve pointed out twice now and will not bother to do so again.
Well, actually a lot of guns in criminal hands are bought from gun stores by straw man purchases, then illegally resold to the criminals. Most of the rest are stolen. So, I guess if you wish to blame a law abiding citizen for being the victim of a crime, you can, but we dont think highly of blaming the victim around here. It’s like blaming women for being raped.
That’s true. Under the original definition, Nato allies were First world, Communist aligned states were 2nd world, and neutral nations 3rd world. Of course that made Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland all “third world” nations. They are hardly “developing” nations which is the current meaning of third world.
Thus, first world refers now to to : *developed, capitalist & industrial *countries, which of course includes Russia and Mexico.
Nope- as far as murder rates and violent crime goes, the USA is smack dab in the middle. Again, America is average, not exceptional.
I agree. If it’s obsolete, if it is something that we, the people no longer want or need, then the right thing to do is a new Amendment to essentially vacate or alter the 2nd to say clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed, that there isn’t a ‘right’ to keep and bear arms, protected by the Constitution and that arms are like any other item someone can own…subject to regulation or banning depending on the public’s safety needs and concerns. This won’t automatically ban guns, but it will make it clear that it is no longer a protected right in the Constitution and will open the way for states to decide what stance they are going to take moving forward. Many states/cities WANT more stringent gun control, even to the point of total bans on whole categories or even all guns outside of police and the military, and this would enable them to do this without violating the Constitution.
Don’t try to fraudulently put arguments in my mouth, please. I cite as the source of these problems the fact that guns are legal and readily available in the first place. Desperate distractions aside, it’s damned clear that there are so many guns in the hands of american criminals because there are so many guns everywhere in america, because of various reasons up to and including a large segment of society that sees the prisoner’s dilemma and says “betrayal is awesome and obviously the best thing ever - see how it’s best for me??”.
I don’t blame the law abiding citizen for being robbed or conned, but if he hadn’t had a gun in the first place then no criminal would have gotten a gun from him. That is an indisputable fact.
I said gun violence. I’m sorry if you don’t like that the facts kick your ass, but you still don’t get to move goalposts to where you have a semblance of a prayer of a chance.
Yep. Unfortunately this country will burn to the ground before any of the Big Ten get amended away, regardless of the needs or even the wishes of the people of this country.
I disagree. I think attitudes on this are already changing, and that guns in individual households have been declining slowly over time and that this trend will continue. I also disagree that if the people want a change that it won’t happen. It might not happen instantly, but if there is a shift in the public perception and public outlook it WILL eventually change, as other things have changed once the public will and perception changed. To me, you are looking at this as someone in the early 1900’s who wants women voting or civil rights saying it will never happen, ‘regardless of the needs or even wishes of the people of this country’.
The wheels may grind slowly in the US, but they do grind forward, and the will of the people is not going to be ignored by politicians once it’s made clear. On the subject of guns it isn’t clear that the will of the majority has shifted to the point where a new amendment is viable…but that doesn’t mean this will always be the case.
I concede that I have a tendency towards pessimism. It probably doesn’t help that I’m pessimistic about our government’s dedication towards serving the wishes and desires of the populace.
Well, considering the current government I think you can make a compelling case that they aren’t exactly dedicated towards the desires and wishes of the populace at large. 
But I think (hope) that this is just a temporary aberration, a perfect storm of fucked up, and that this will be corrected in future elections. We shall see. I do have faith that, eventually, things will get back on track. Looking at our past, often you have these little back steps.
Right.
Violent crime has not increased in the several states which allow open carry.
To answer your immediate question, can I reconcile the dissent on Young with Heller, a ruling that many profoundly disagree with and which may have a limited period of force, depending on how the future Supreme Court is constituted? I could try, but IANAL, so again I will say that one out of the three circuit judges thinks he can, as does the Attorney General of Hawaii. But I think there’s a much broader discussion to be had here.
It’s not clear that the matter of the legal correctness of the Young decision is necessarily the only productive line of argument here. There is value, in my view, of a broader discussion of ideas – of what should be rather than what is – which indeed is arguably of even greater value because history tends to show that in a rational, evidence-based world, what should be ultimately tends to prevail over a counterproductive or obsolete status quo, even if takes many years or generations to accomplish. And this is notably likely to be particularly true in areas where the US stands alone among the world’s democracies in obstinate opposition to principles that have become universally accepted in the modern world. It’s notably likely to be true where these unique positions elude any rational evidentiary support, namely the policies promoting the universality of guns and the lack of universality of health care, which is essentially the diametric opposite of the rest of the world and whose consequences are commensurately tragic.
In the context of the interpretation that I put forward, it means the right to bring out those arms when militias are mobilized in defense of the nation. Which of course is not going to happen in the 21st century, but that’s what I interpret it to have meant in the 18th.
It’s somewhat comparable to the present situation in Switzerland, where people keep arms ostensibly in support of national security, but they are strictly regulated and you certainly don’t have crazies walking around in public festooned with guns, or freaking people out by walking into coffee shops with AR-15s slung over their shoulders.
You appear to be saying that an outcome based result is incontrovertibly a bad thing under any and all circumstances. Again, in the interest of a constructive exchange of ideas, I refer you to what has become a rather famous lecture [PDF] by Beverley McLachlin, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, when she delivered the Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lecture at the Victoria University of Wellington Law School in 2005. The topic of the lecture was unwritten constitutional principles, an idea that goes back at least to Greek and Roman thought if not earlier. It posits that laws and justice rest on rational principles, and that embedded in the concept of the rule of law is the proposition that there are fundamental and overriding principles of justice inherent in all civilized societies, and that these unwritten but fundamental principles can be more important in the guidance of judicial rulings than any of the laws of state. Some misinterpreted McLachlin’s view at the time and accused her of excessive judicial activism, but it gradually became clear that the principle had deep roots going back to the origins of democracy, and it was indeed the application of those principles that helped the Supreme Court of Canada blaze new trails in social progress like LGBT rights and SSM.
Support for gun rights has been increasing, from what I can see. In the 1970s there was broad support for outright gun bans, as seen in places like DC and Chicago where handgun possession was effectively banned and carry was certainly forbidden for normal people. Very few states had a way to carry a concealed handgun legally, it was often something like ‘be white and hope the cop is OK with you’. The supreme court effectively ruled that the second amendment was meaningless and protected no actual right (like a number of people argue in this thread). Today using firearms for self-defense is legal and accepted, and the majority of states allow for legal carry with a specified process (instead of the old ‘be politically connected’ may issue laws).
I don’t think that restricting people’s civil rights is actually ‘moving forward’ in any reasonable sense of the term. Making it easier for criminals to prey on victims is not exactly a virtue. Same thing with the attitude of ‘if we don’t like the constitution, we just ignore whatever it says completely’ that you see in this threat, where people feel that since they want gun control they can simply decide that the constitutional protection doesn’t mean anything in practice. You can make similar ‘they didn’t have X technology back then’ to justify restrictions on free speech, free religion, due process, self incrimination, and many more, so once you open the door to ‘if we don’t like it, it doesn’t restrict us’ you are really saying that constitutional protections are meaningless and that you don’t need that pesky rule of law getting in your way.
That isn’t responsive to the question. That being that given Heller and the constitution is the law of the land, why do you think Young was wrong? You take a meandering path, but if I understand you correction it’s because you think carry is limited by militia service. But this view of the militia ignores Heller so this view does not in fact reconcile with Heller. Heller stands for the idea that while militia service can inform the right, it does not limit the right.
Perhaps the dissenting judge was not able to accept the result of Heller either.
I wouldn’t speak in absolutes, but generally I’d say yes that is what I’m saying. Outcome based judging is a bad thing. *Fiat justitia ruat caelum *- Let justice be done, though the heavens fall. If the outcome is undesirable, the people should change the law through their elected representatives. Speaking about potential bad outcomes if the law is followed is no reason to ignore the law, which is what would happen if Young was decided the other way. Bear must mean something, and in this case, it is clear it means to carry firearms in case of confrontation.
Sorry, but with Germany’s record over the last century that still sounds weird.